Posted
by
timothy
on Monday October 26, 2009 @07:08PM
from the weighed-in-the-balance dept.

CWmike writes "While the world focused on Microsoft's launch of Windows 7, Florida-based Psystar quietly launched Rebel EFI, a software product that should worry Apple a lot more than Microsoft's latest operating system. Rebel EFI allows users to run Apple's flagship operating system, Mac OS X Snow Leopard, on non-Apple hardware. Computerworld test drove the making of a Hackintosh out of a generic PC with the company's new software package and found a product that has a lot of homework still to do. Reviewer Frank Ohlhorst's final analysis: 'Psystar's Rebel EFI (a free trial is available) is an interesting tool, but it is very limited when it comes to the selection of hardware that you can use. The company really needs to create a compatible hardware list and post that on its Web site — and it also needs to create some usable documentation. As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed.'"

As it stands right now, you can use Rebel EFI to build a Mac clone, but unless you stick to relatively generic hardware, you will be disappointed

So in other words an OS made to run and tested only on 6 or 7 different major configurations of computers is going to need some tweaking before it can run on other, untested and unsupported hardware? This is hardly a suprise. Next thing is we're going to have a story saying that iPhone OS doesn't run so great on the G1...

They seem to have fallen in love with the nVidia GeForce 9400M for offerings like the Mini and Macbook/Macbook Air, but you're right. I've seen several of them with an Intel GMA 950, and I could swear I've seen a couple with a Intel GMA 4500MHD as well. Many Mac versions of games will list the GMA 950 as the minimum system requirement to play the game... SecondLife and WoW are among them. (I don't really look that hard, just what I've been asked to support. Truth be told, I run a hodgepodge of operating sys

Pystar is trying to get around Apple suing them for the "clone" of Snow Leopard. This is supposed to be a "generic" MacOS clone..which seems to me would make it pretty much UNIX BSD.

Not sure how that got modded up... it's entirely wrong. While the hardware Pystar has sold might be called a clone (it's just PC hardware with known-compatible chips), they are NOT providing a clone as an alternative to OS X. The OS X that is installed is the actual retail version. They're loading some things to allow it to install (emulating the Mac EFI, IIRC), and providing some drivers/patches to get some hardware to work.

XNU is a hybrid kernel, which means it's basically a monolithic kernel but it runs something that looks a bit like a microkernel and puts all of the important system servers in the kernel's address space. The Microkernel is Mach, which was released under the CMU license (roughly equivalent to the BSD license) by CMU. Most of the services (e.g. process management, networking, and so on) are provided by the BSD server, which is now mostly based on FreeBSD. You'll note how easily libdispatch was ported to FreeBSD. This is because it uses the kqueue interface to the kernel, which XNU only has because it was copied from FreeBSD (and then slightly modified to support things like Mach ports). Almost any system call you issue in OS X will be serviced by code taken from FreeBSD. The biggest difference is the driver subsystem, which is completely new in OS X.

http://chameleon.osx86.hu/ [osx86.hu]
The same, but FOSS. Some even suggest the same codebase, but I of course would never be cynical enough to suggest that or that running strings on both if someone had a spare moment might be interesting.

What is it with unethically derivative commercial tools for running OSX on PCs? Back in the PPC days, there was the whole CherryOS [wikipedia.org] thing, that turned out to be a straight rip-off of pearPC. And now this.

Because Apple uses dubious means to prevent people from running OSX on computers they don't bless. There's always going to be a market for it as long as Apple refuses to allow for people to just install on whatever hardware they want.

As for unethical, it's not unethical in the least unless you're stealing the code directly. It's hypocritical beyond belief whenever somebody says that it's unethical to use Apple software in a way that Apple doesn't approve. Makes me wonder what that makes anybody that runs

The catch here is that Apple's Mac OS X license forbids installation on anything but a "Macintosh Brand Computer", hence when you install snow leopard you are violating its license. That's the main sticking point. Not that I like stupid tie-downs in licenses like that, but the law looks to be on Apple's side. Pystar themselves may not be violating the license, but they're blatantly assisting and encouraging their customers to do so. Should make for an entertaining battle...

I just searched WestLaw for "EULA End User License Agreement", and came up with 100+ documents, most of them reading over and over "the EULA clearly restricted blah blah", "...were clearly enforceable under California law", "EULA... was a validly binding contract.", "EULA.. was enforceable", etc. etc. Way to post nonsense with absolutely NO research to back it up.

So let me fix that for you.

*HUNDREDS* of cases about violating EULAs have been brought to court in the US, and in many cases, they were found enforceable.

Just a couple weeks ago I was in district court listening to a case regarding an EULA, and discussing various aspects of it. There was no discussion of whether it was enforceable. Clearly it was, but that there was dispute as to the scope of the contract itself.

From what I know about copyright, I only need a license if I intend to copy for some purpose that does not fall under "fair use". If I bought a copy from a licensee, I have a right to sell that copy.

I see no reason why I cannot buy a retail version of photoshop, install it on a machine, and sell the machine to someone else (provided I sell the disk with the fair use copy that resides on the machine).

I see no reason why I cannot buy a retail version of photoshop, install it on a machine, and sell the machine to someone else (provided I sell the disk with the fair use copy that resides on the machine).

That's the First sale doctrine [wikipedia.org], where you legally buy a copyrighted work then sell it to someone else, along with all copies you made including the installed copy. However Autodesk, I don't know if others do it also, has stopped or tried to stop people from selling legal copies of AutoCAD. Autodesk has ev

Does apple even sell full version of their OS that don't come bundled with their hardware?

Yes Apple [apple.com] sells the OS X, Snow Leopard now, DVD. You can order it online, in an Apple store, or from retailers. Those who live near a Fry's Electronics [frys.com] can buy Snow Leopard there. If there is no Fry's near you, as much as I wish there were one near me so I could buy electrical and electronic components there isn't, you can also buy it at BestBuy [bestbuy.com].

As for unethical, it's not unethical in the least unless you're stealing the code directly

Which is basically what CherryOS was doing. They took the PearPC code, slapped a CherryOS logo on it and distributed/sold it.

It's hypocritical beyond belief whenever somebody says that it's unethical to use Apple software in a way that Apple doesn't approve. Makes me wonder what that makes anybody that runs software based heavily on designs lifted from elsewhere.

I don't think you understand what he was saying. He wasn't saying that it was unethical to use this to run Mac OS X but rather it seems to be heavily borrowed from a F/OSS project much as how CherryOS basically took PearPC and changed it to make it look like a different product. That is unethical.

Do you really hear yourself? Apple could care less if Joe User comes in, buys OS X [apple.com] , and makes a hackintosh. They do care when some business comes in, takes their intellectual property, packages it in competing hardware, and sells it as their own. I'm also sure they do have a problem with folks who go out and download it via Torrent. Psystar can't even prove that they bought OS X. They 'lost' their receipts. Funny thing that...

There is nothing 'dubious' about it. Apple owns OS X. They can license it to whoever they choose. You may not like it, but that doesn't make what Psystar is doing right. If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.

Think you can do it better, than purchase something Like NeXT and design your own with your own time and money and then Open Source your result.

Do you really hear yourself? Apple could care less if Joe User comes in, buys OS X [apple.com] , and makes a hackintosh.

Actually, Apple has a big problem with that. Apple sells computers and iPods. Everything else they sell, including Mac OS X, is centered around selling more computers and iPods/iPhones. Some of it is arguably sold at a loss. (c'mon, snow leopard for $29? bundling OS X Server Unlimitedwith a mac mini for $999?)

So yes, they really do care about people building hackintoshes. Some may say

If someone else tries to make profit off of Apples product without license from Apple, then Apple is absolutely within their rights to prevent it.

It's perfectly legitimate to resell products at a profit without permission or "license" from the manufacturer. That's exactly what any retail store does to make money (in the case where they buy from a distributor and aren't the original manufacturer).

Until Apple proves in court that you're criminally liable for installing OSX on a non-Apple brand computer, they can take their EULA and stuff it. An EULA cannot be legally binding if it contains instructions that violate the law (for example, an EULA that says I now own your children). This is the crux of Psystar's argument - that Apple's restriction of using OSX on Apple-brand hardware is not supported by the law.

I don't really care about this particular court battle, however, the ramifications for what an EULA can restrict are important to pay attention to. What if MS decides you can only install Windows on a list of approved brands?

Was that supposed to be clever? Apple owns OS X. No one claimed they owned BSD. OS X was developed, marketed, and sold by Apple. It is not BSD, although it has it's roots in BSD. NeXT was based on FreeBSD and NetBSD. OS X was derived from NeXT.

Think you could do better? It's perfectly legal to take open source, package it, and sell it if the license allows. Take the path that Apple did. Of course you'd need developers, tons of money, and then more cash to market it. They own OS X. Any arguments to the contrary are just slight of hand.

Psystar didn't do that. They took a product owned by someone else and sold it as their own. Hell, they are doing the same thing to the OSX86 community and all their work. I find it curious that people will try to defend Psystar when they are turning their thumbs at the very same open source community.

Because Apple uses dubious means to prevent people from running OSX on computers they don't bless. There's always going to be a market for it as long as Apple refuses to allow for people to just install on whatever hardware they want.

Apple tried [wikipedia.org] that before. While Steve Jobs was gone Apple licensed Mac clones but when Apple brought Jobs back he looked at the licensing and saw that Apple was losing money because of it. So he killed the clones. When he did Jobs said Apple was a hardware company and licensi

Because Apple uses dubious means to prevent people from running OSX on computers they don't bless. There's always going to be a market for it as long as Apple refuses to allow for people to just install on whatever hardware they want.

They don't even need to do that. The commercial market for Psystar's machines would dry up overnight if Apple released a ~$1100ish headless tower.

The commercial market for Psystar's machines would dry up overnight if Apple released a ~$1100ish headless tower.

The problem is that there is a very, very good reason why Apple only makes small-form-factor, all-in-one, mid/high-end laptops and workstation class machines: profit margins.

Such machines can be sold for a premium price c.f. generic tower hardware - and most objective reviews of Apple hardware find that it is reasonably competetive when compared like-for-like with other SFFs, all-in-ones, workstations or high-end laptops.

A headless tower (or a chunky, entry-level laptop) would be in direct competition wit

The same, but FOSS. Some even suggest the same codebase, but I of course would never be cynical enough to suggest that or that running strings on both if someone had a spare moment might be interesting.

It actually sounds more like a rebadged Boot132 [wikipedia.org] to me. Possibly with Chameleon for a bootloader.

I'll come out and suggest the same codebase and be shocked if it wasn't a straight up PC-EFI 9 or the latest Chameleon + EFI combo. All Pystar has done is slap their own branding on existing OSX86 tools since the beginning.

They're more than kinda shady and I feel really sorry for folks who bought one of their insta-hackintoshes and didn't have the technical know-how to compile drivers / hack efi strings etc to keep their "Mac" running properly.

Not soon enough, it's been more than a year since Apple took them to court. People were saying Pystar was dead back in January, here it is 10 months later and they're still kicking. They may, I hope not, end up like SCO, hard if not impossible to kill.

http://chameleon.osx86.hu/
The same, but FOSS. Some even suggest the same codebase, but I of course would never be cynical enough to suggest that or that running strings on both if someone had a spare moment might be interesting.

Pystar itself uses an open source boot loader, Darwin Universal Boot Loader [macobserver.com] or DUBL. This leads me to question exactly what value Pystar adds. It can't be hardware compatibility and drivers, the CNet tester even says "It seems like Psystar still has a lot of homework to do when it

...is that it turns it into a cat-and-mouse game. Just like the Apple vs Palm USB issue. Apple will find a way to prevent OS X from running on this, and people will have a system where any software update could brick their computer. Then the Psystar team will find a way around that. Rinse, repeat. So I can either ignore upgrades, use a different OS, or actually buy a Mac. Sounds like some great choices.

I am waiting for the ability to run it ala VirtualBox or Vmware Player/Workstation.

I don't have any use for my Mac mini other than checking some web design comparability with Safari under OSX (Win port does not like WINE). I can run XP under VirtualBox no problems but the Win Port of Safari isn't exactly the same anyway.

Don't count on it. The problem with virtualization is that it requires the virtualized OS to be as cooperative to the whole affair as possible, since it needs to be fooled into thinking it has unfettered access to the system, which in many ways is much harder than just getting the OS to run natively on the hardware. Windows and Linux are becoming more virtualization-friendly every day since their developers have realized that their operating systems are being virtualized on a regular basis, but since there

http://pcwizcomputer.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=75&Itemid=45 [pcwizcomputer.com] You can give that link a try. pcwiz does some good stuff within the OSx86 community. I'm not sure if he's gotten Snow Leopard running, but I've seen Leopard running inside VMware. There's also a VMWare image you might still be able to find on torrent sites, so you don't have to actually do the install. Not sure if it's still around though.

I can also confirm this works, although not well. As soon as you give the OS a fair amount of filesystem activity (ie decompressing, installing etc.), it locks up. Vmware complains about something related to filesystem activity/read&write/something (can't remember, really), and the only option is to turn the virtual machine off at this point. This is only my experience, of course. I have only tested this on Linux with host filesystems reiserfs and ext[3,4], and have not used a dedicated hard drive, only

I'd love to explore OS X a bit, but the price tag to get in the gate and look around is just to much unless you have already drank the Kool-Aid. The mini at $599 is sort of a joke and everything else goes over the 1K line.

Is there a Best Buy nearby? They have most of the apple product line on display...

As for #2 and #3, sounds like a weak argument for not shelling out the cash. If you don't think it's worth the $600 then don't buy it. You don't need a KVM if it's only for occasional use. Just unplug your mouse and keyboard from your PC and use it on the mini, and do the reverse when you're finished.

Couldn't you just use another webkit browser like Chromium, Konqueror, Epiphany or Midori? The only difference I'm aware of is the horrible font rendering on Macs (and old versions of Safari on Windows), but that shouldn't affect the layout.

I am waiting for the ability to run it ala VirtualBox or Vmware Player/Workstation.

That's what I want to do, run Snow Leopard, SN in a VM. I want to setup my Mac I'm typing this on to dual boot SN and Ubuntu. Then I'll use VirtualBox or another VM program to run Ubuntu in a VM. I'd also like to run SN in a VM in Ubuntu, that way I could boot into either OS and still run the other one. In the VirtualBox forums [virtualbox.org] I read it was possible to run OS X as a guess but when I last searched I didn't find out how to

Although I am all for the proliferation of decent software, Apple should be considerably nervous about these kinds of offerings. Right now the support loop for hardware is fairly closed; the amount of variables they must take into consideration when providing tech-support is fairly small considering they control the hardware side of things so tightly.

On the same token, it seems these days a lot of add-on hardware is Mac compatible, hard drives, memory, video cards, sound cards, the list goes on...so this leads me a conclusion of Apple putting more bullets in its feet as the list of upgrades and add-ons for Apple machines grows; they lose that hardware control variable.

This leads to the next conclusion, at what point does outfitting a machine with tons of non-factory-spec hardware separate it from a ground up build? If it is just the motherboard, then they are facing a conundrum.

Again, IANAMU, does Apple's support coverage encompass machines with things like user-added memory & videocards? If it does, then eventually they might as well just allow individuals to purchase OEM copies for their build, seeing as their support loop must scale to additional interoperability anyways.

As long as Apple doesn't say a word in favor of this stuff (thereby making it mainstream and accepted), they can refuse to support OSX on other hardware and take only a minor PR hit - if you're a hack(intosh)er, it's expected that you do things yourself.

Outside of video and audio production folks who may put in some 3rd party hardware, but this day in age, it seems to all be firewire or usb based products. Most people I know using macs have laptops or iMacs. I just replaced my last PowerMac with an iMac. Outside of RAM, I don't see myself upgrading anything.

The conspiracy theory is that Psystar is funded by "other companies." Even Apple has claimed [groklaw.net] this in their complaint against them in court:

"18. On information and belief, persons other than Psystar are involved in Psystar’s unlawful and improper activities described in this Amended Complaint. The true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of these persons are unknown to Apple. Consequently they are referred to herein as John Does 1 through 10 (collectively the “John

I got Dell Mini 9 last spring but it was almost unusable with WinXP due to the screen resolution and sluggishness of Windows on Atom CPU. Later I installed Mac OS X 10.5.7 and then 10.5.8 with EFI and it completely changed usability problems I had with the netbook. And no, I didn't copy that floppy but rather bought Leopard DVD from Apple.This is an intermediate solution because I'm still waiting for a netbook or a 4x iPhone-type panel from Apple. Once I put my hands on it I will certainly sell this Dell.

I'm running Leopard (and Solaris) on an Acer Aspire One and it's amazing how well it runs on what's really the lowest of the low end especially when there's no chance of squeezing decent performance out of MS' latest offerings on the same hardware. Apple's definitely doing something right with their OS.

Better the devil you know... I'm unhappy enough about Microsoft's kill switches, and I'm still on Windows 2000. There's no way I'd trust a crack that replaces Apple's copy protection with one containing a kill switch like this:

"Rebel EFI is free to try and download, though it will have limited hardware functionality and a run-time of two hours."

Certainly not one by a company that's already stated they can't keep track of their own paperwork.

OSX is designed only for Apple hardware, without regard (the more cynical among us say negative regard) for other hardware. Installing OSX on hardware it's not designed for is quite an achievement, even if 90% of it is the same as "normal" hardware.

A Mac is just a fancy PC with a pre-set hardware spec. If it was really some bizarre, proprietary hardware configuration then Windows and Linux wouldn't run on it. And the fact that you can run virtual OSX on a non-Mac if you don't care about unsupported hardware just reinforces that.

The special sauce is in the firmware. Apple are using a custom EFI firmware (which even supports wireless and bluetooth right in the boot menu) in their machines while I've never even seen a PC which uses EFI instead of BIOS, let alone one that boots from custom built firmware. Windows and Linux boot through EFI's BIOS emulation IIRC. Also the motherboards ARE custom made versions using established intel chipsets, they need to be custom made to fit the shape of the iMacs and Mini's.

Yeah, maybe! Or maybe it's Dell that hand-picks all the choicest x86 components off the assembly line and passes the rubbish onto Apple. I mean, we are talking pure wishful thinking and speculation here.

Apple specs out the parts to the same manufactures that a lot of PC users do, but they are slightly different specs. When I opened up a 5 year old PowerBook and dell the other day, they both had Hatichi Travelstar harddrives, but the one in the Mac had a "Made for Apple" on the label. The one from the Dell had just a generic label. As far as I can tell, the drives are identical other than the type of ribbon had a standard EIDE connector on one end and a ribbon with a special adaptor for the motherboard. Same with the DVD burner.

Now what I have found is that Apple tends to write their own drivers. For YEARS ATI had better hardware than Nvidia, but ATI's drivers sucked on windows. It was literally buy a graphics card, wait 6 months for a decent driver to come out. On the Macs, never had the issues. From my understanding, the reason behind that was the fact that Apple wrote the drivers, not ATI.

I just got an email back from Psystar support, unfortunately they don't answer my question on USB CD and their Wiki does not cover the subject either:

Hello,

The RebelEFI Hardware Compatibility List (HCL) can be found at http://wiki.psystar.com/ [psystar.com] . Here you will be able to find information regarding your hardware. If your device/computer is not listed please send a complete report of what is not working to support@psystar.com. Please include: Computer Model, Motherboard, CPU, Video Card and Order Number if you